Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-09-2005, 11:27 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pesco-vegan wrote:
There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
causes.


Road-kill


Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
order to provide meat via road-kill.


It should be considered "ethical" by most standards so long as you're
not the one who swerved to hit it.

  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 03:02 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" wrote

Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote
There is another way. You can wait for the animal to die of natural
causes.


Road-kill


Strictly speaking an animal still has to be killed in
order to provide meat via road-kill.


It's an animal that was already dead from an unintentional cause, therefore
it does not need to be killed for the purpose of obtaining food/eating.
Another example would be animals killed by a natural disaster.



  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 03:53 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"useless cesspool" wrote in message
...

You didn't "forget,"


I forgot, moron. Does that really upset
you so much or do you just miss me?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 03:53 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh shut up, Useless.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 05:05 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" wrote
Dutch wrote:


My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.


That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics. I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are. Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.

[..]

I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food.


Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do
to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there
is
no moral cost.


Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?


Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.

organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.


You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
preached
and practiced.


That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.


Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why not
apply complex and adaptable solutions? You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
thinking there?




  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 08:15 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
You didn't "forget,"


I forgot


No, you didn't think.

Does that really upset you so much


I'm not upset.

or do you just miss me?


You were gone?
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 08:19 PM
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote
Dutch wrote:


My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.


That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.


In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics.


It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.

I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are.


I doubt that.

Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.

[..]

I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food.

Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must do
to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that there
is
no moral cost.


Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?


Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.


Agreed.

organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.

You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
preached
and practiced.


That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.


Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why not
apply complex and adaptable solutions?


A simple rule is better than nothing. Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.

You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why stop
thinking there?


Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such. I just choose to avoid them.

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 08:22 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skanky wrote:
Oh


Dummy.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2005, 09:59 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pesco-vegan" wrote

Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote
Dutch wrote:


My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.


That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it
is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.


In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.


"Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests against
the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics.


It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.


That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.

I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are.


I doubt that.


Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
instead of using a rational process, did that tendency come first, or did
"veganism" exacorbate it?

Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.


"Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.

[..]

I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food.

Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must
do
to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
there
is
no moral cost.

Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?


Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.


Agreed.

organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.

You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
preached
and practiced.

That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.


Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why
not
apply complex and adaptable solutions?


A simple rule is better than nothing.


Who is advocating "nothing"?

Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.


Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one of
convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
too much trouble to do otherwise.."

You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
stop
thinking there?


Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such.


If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
vegan.

I just choose to avoid them.



  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-09-2005, 07:09 PM
Pesco-vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote

Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote
Dutch wrote:

My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but it
is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside world.


In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.


"Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests against
the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics.


It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.


That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.

I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are.


I doubt that.


Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
instead of using a rational process,


I do try to be rational most of the time. I am simply introducing the
theory that most people develop their moral conclusions first and the
justifying arguments second, more than they would care to admit or are
even
consciously aware

did that tendency come first, or did
"veganism" exacorbate it?

Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.


"Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.


I don't think that follows.

[..]

I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food.

Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we must
do
to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
there
is
no moral cost.

Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?

Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.


Agreed.

organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.

You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
preached
and practiced.

That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.

Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem? Why
not
apply complex and adaptable solutions?


A simple rule is better than nothing.


Who is advocating "nothing"?

Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.


Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one of
convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
too much trouble to do otherwise.."


Having thought this over a bit more I now agree with you. AIUI the
guiding principle behind veganism is that animals deserve the same
rights we claim for ourselves. In that case following the rule of
veganism is not the same as following the guiding principle behind
that rule.

You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
stop
thinking there?


Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such.


If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
vegan.


I am planning a name change soon. I am considering something
even more oxymoronic like carno-vegan. If you avoid animal
products for aesthetic reasons rather than moral ones, are you
not still a vegan? In my case the point is moot anyway. Eating
fish disqualifies me from calling myself a vegan.

I just choose to avoid them.




  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-09-2005, 01:30 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pesco-vegan" wrote

Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote

Dutch wrote:

"Pesco-vegan" wrote
Dutch wrote:

My belief is that ethics are almost always attempts to rationalise
emotional responses and veganism is no exception.

That is a very nice definition of the pseudo-ethics of veganism, but
it
is
not real ethics. Real ethics is the weighing and balancing of one's
own
needs and interests against the needs and interests of the outside
world.

In theory that is true. In practice I think most people sort of 'feel'
what is right and then develop their ethics to reach the desired
conclusions.


"Feeling what is right" *is* the act of weighing one's own interests
against
the interests of the outside world. There is no separate process.

It is extremely telling that you presented that as your definition of
ethics.

It wasn't meant as a definition of ethics.


That's strange, when a sentence begins with, "My belief is that ethics
are..." that indicates a definition of ethics is to follow.

I submit that defending the idea of veganism has skewed your notion
of what ethics really are.

I doubt that.


Your comments lead me to that conclusion. You have admitted that you are
basing your idea of ethics on "feelings" and aesthetic considerations
instead of using a rational process,


I do try to be rational most of the time. I am simply introducing the
theory that most people develop their moral conclusions first and the
justifying arguments second, more than they would care to admit or are
even
consciously aware


I don't buy that at all, you have it backwards. The moral framework already
exists in our social nature, network and society, people have emotional
reactions about moral issues and project them in different ways.


did that tendency come first, or did
"veganism" exacorbate it?

Veganism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, make no
mistake.


"Veganism" will deplete your ability to think rationally.


I don't think that follows.


If you allow emotion to overrule reason then you are not thinking
rationally. That's what veganism does, and you have admittedly bought into
that kind of thinking, to some extent.


[..]

I consider that all foods come with an associated
moral cost that includes factors such as the natural habitat that
the land could be if it wasn't being used to grow food and the
animal suffering caused to produce the food.

Why do you insist on associating a "moral cost" to doing what we
must
do
to
obtain food and survive? A more rational moral conclusion is that
there
is
no moral cost.

Perhaps moral cost is not quite the right term to use.
How about undesirable consequences?

Growing food has a negative impact on the world, in turn it provides a
benefit to us. Measuring that cost/benefit ratio in an ethical way is
complex, simplistic ideas like veganism are not the be-all answer that
adherents naively imagine.

Agreed.

organic vegetables
hand-grown in your garden have the lowest cost. Meats from
factory farms have the highest. On average I consider plant foods
much more ethical than animal foods but this is not universally
the case.

You are probably roughly accurate in your assessment of the cost in
animal
deaths, but such a calculation does not support "veganism" as it is
preached
and practiced.

That's true. Veganism is a simple, easy to follow rule that can help
reduce the undesirable consequences of one's diet but your earlier
statement that it is neither necessary nor sufficient is along the
right lines.

Why should we apply a simple rule to solve a vastly complex problem?
Why
not
apply complex and adaptable solutions?

A simple rule is better than nothing.


Who is advocating "nothing"?

Complex and adaptable solutions
are better still.


Veganism is not complex or adaptable, it is binary and rigid. "Do not
consume animal products." The only flexibility within it is a crass one
of
convenience, not principle, ""Do not consume animal products, unless it's
too much trouble to do otherwise.."


Having thought this over a bit more I now agree with you. AIUI the
guiding principle behind veganism is that animals deserve the same
rights we claim for ourselves.


Right, and from a rational perspective that principle is absurd. There *are*
intelligent, rational principles regarding improving our attitudes towards
animals, but veganism does not embody them..

In that case following the rule of
veganism is not the same as following the guiding principle behind
that rule.


Bingo!

You have realized that consuming
fresh caught fish can form a part of a healthy, ethical lifestyle, why
stop
thinking there?

Carefully chosen meats can also form part of a healthy, ehtical
lifestyle
but are not necessary for such.


If you understand and believe that then you should not call yourself a
vegan.


I am planning a name change soon. I am considering something
even more oxymoronic like carno-vegan. If you avoid animal
products for aesthetic reasons rather than moral ones, are you
not still a vegan?


No, that makes you a vegetarian.

In my case the point is moot anyway. Eating
fish disqualifies me from calling myself a vegan.


It's not a label I would use to identify myself, in any form.


I just choose to avoid them.





  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-10-2005, 08:25 AM
spaatz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Suspect....LOL..came across this by chance but it brought a smile to my
face. You are still handy withe "dummy" and "ignorant" labels for other
people in this newsgroup I see. Interesting coming from a fellow who
makes any number of assertions that are erroneous at the least and
silly at best. This I pointed out last month in response to your
nonsensical posts reguarding D.O.s. You did not grace my observations
with a reply. I can only assume because you were embarressed at being
show glaring inaccuricies in certain posts of yours. Your comments
(even sketchily based in logic and fact as they are, might be more
persuasive if you abandoned the name calling and slurs denigrating the
intelligence of others. As they say "people in glass houses....")




usual suspect wrote:
Tyrone Biggums wrote:
Read it and weep, gullible dolt.


The sample is ridiculous.


Ipse dixit and completely IGNORANT. The sample wasn't 65 people, as you
stupidly suggest. Keep reading if you haven't killfiled me yet, moron.

I have 15+ years of research experience.


In what field? And why do you not comprehend the nature of the
meta-analysis of this study?

65 people representing millions all over the world, races, social/economic
factors, environment, etc. etc. etc.


Whoa, dumb ass. The study was a meta-analysis of previous studies: "110
homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were
analysed."

The *MEDIAN SIZE* was 65 -- but the studies had anywhere from 10 to 1573
participants. And before you get all carried away in mocking that which
you clearly didn't comprehend, keep in mind these were studies which
purportedly showed benefits of homeopathy (i.e., sugar pills). This
meta-analysis found that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect
of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of
conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion
that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects."

This "study" is a sad joke


No, it's actually illustrative.

and proves nothing.


You mean aside from the fact that sugar pills have can have a placebo
effect (if they have any effect at all)?

Try again.


YOU try again, dummy. It wasn't a "study of 65 people," it was a
meta-analysis of 110 homeopathy studies compared to 110 allopathic
studies with a median size of 65 participants (range of 10-1573). You
didn't even comprehend that, did you, pussy.

Oh, and you need to go back to my KF too.


Is ignorance really bliss?




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
buy painkillers and other medicines from us online.Contact: spanson benson General Cooking 0 09-05-2016 07:03 PM
oxycodone,xanax,adderall and other medicines for sale. spanson benson General Cooking 1 03-05-2016 12:57 PM
So what do we really want to wear to work? At first thought, most ofus would say, "It would be really cool if we could wear jeans to work all thetime. After all, I paid just as much for my jeans as I paid for that outfit Iwore to work yesterday. [email protected] Sushi 0 26-04-2008 06:23 PM
EARN FROM YOUR P.C . WORK FROM YOUR HOME. THE WELL PAID ONLINE MAKINGPROGRAMME INVITES YOU TO WORK WITH THEM AND GET PAID FOR YOUR WORK.YOU CANEARN $2,00,000 IN A SINGLE WEEK. THE LINK IS BELOW vicky General Cooking 0 25-04-2008 07:05 AM
homeopathic medicine experience Michael Balarama Vegan 14 13-09-2005 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017